Hangey, R. v. Husqvarna Professional Products
247 A.3d 1136
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- In May 2013 Ronald Hangey purchased a Husqvarna riding mower; in August 2016 he was injured while operating it on property in Wayne County. Plaintiffs sued in Philadelphia County naming Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc. (HPP) and others.
- HPP is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Charlotte, NC; in 2016 HPP reported ~$1.4 billion U.S. sales.
- HPP reported $75,310 in direct sales in Philadelphia County in 2016 (≈0.005% of U.S. sales), most via a single authorized dealer (DL Electronics). Sales through big-box retailers were delivered to non‑Philadelphia distribution centers.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections asserting improper venue in Philadelphia; the trial court found HPP met the quality prong but not the quantity prong of the venue test and transferred the case to Bucks County.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the trial court erred by relying primarily on the percentage of national sales and concluding HPP’s Philadelphia contacts satisfied the quantity requirement for venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in Philadelphia is proper under Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(2) ("regularly conducts business") — i.e., whether HPP's contacts satisfy the quantity prong of the quality/quantity test | Hangey: Philadelphia had continuous, ongoing, regularly recurring Husqvarna sales (authorized dealer(s) and sales occurred in county), so venue is proper despite small percentage of national sales | HPP: Philadelphia sales represent only 0.005% of national sales (de minimis); most sales occur elsewhere or via big-box retailers with distribution centers outside Philadelphia, so contacts are not general or habitual | Superior Court reversed: percentage alone is not dispositive; on the totality of the evidence HPP’s contacts (authorized dealer in Philadelphia and $75,310 in direct Philadelphia sales in 2016) were sufficiently continuous to satisfy the quantity prong, so venue in Philadelphia is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Canter v. Am. Honda Motor Corp., 231 A.2d 140 (Pa. 1967) (one to two percent of gross sales in Philadelphia supported venue where acts in county were sales-related and regular)
- Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co., 208 A.2d 252 (Pa. 1965) (five to ten percent of business from Philadelphia passengers supported venue where driving into city and collecting fares were regularly performed)
- Zampana-Barry v. Donaghue, 921 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 2007) (articulates quality/quantity framework; acts must be sufficiently continuous to be habitual)
- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990) (venue fact-specific; each case depends on business context)
- Krosnowski v. Ward, 836 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to great weight; burden on challenger to show improper venue)
- Mathues v. Tim-Bar Corp., 652 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 1994) (quantity prong not met where evidence showed only one or two sales in county)
- Singley v. Flier, 851 A.2d 200 (Pa. Super. 2004) (contacts insufficient where acts did not satisfy quality prong and quantity was small relative to overall operations)
- PECO Energy Co. v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co., 802 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 2002) (minimal and incidental contacts, even if in county, do not satisfy venue when not essential to business)